BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14732 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
3.K.Rajitha … Petitioners
S.Babu … Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to call for the records and quash the proceedings on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Madurai, in C.C.No.37 of 2009.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Janakiramulu
For Respondent : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
Babu has lodged a private complaint in C.C.No.37/2009
before the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Madurai, against Siddarthanan
(A1), Raguram (A2), Niranjan Reddy (A3), Navaneethamma (A4),
http://www.judis.nic.inRajitha (A5) and Ramesh (A6), for quashing which, A3, A4 and A5
are before this Court.
2. Heard Mr.V.Janakiramulu, counsel for the
petitioners/accused and Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian counsel for the
3. It is the case of the complainant that Siddharthanan
(A1) and Raghuram (A2) approached him and told him that A3, A4
and A5 are in possession of shares of Dr.Reddy’s Lab, Infosys,
Wipro, TATA Steel etc and that they (A1 and A2) are the power
agents of A3 to A5; that they will obtain the shares for the
complainant on payment of commission; accordingly, the
complainant agreed to purchase the shares and the shares were
transferred on 28.03.2006 in favour of the complainant; that A1 and
A2 asked the complainant to give Rs.40 lakhs as commission and
the complainant also agreed and gave the amount; the amount was
credited into the UTI Account of the complainant on 03.04.2006;
when the complainant wanted to withdraw the amount, Ramesh
(A6) the Deputy Manager of UTI Bank told him that the Andhra
Police have registered a case against the complainant and therefore,
the amount has been frozen. Under such circumstances, the
complainant has filed the present prosecution alleging that all the
accused had conspired to cheat him.
4. On the contrary, even in the complaint, the complainant
has stated that a case in Crime No.80/2006 has been registered
against him by the Andhra Pradesh Police under Section 406 IPC on
the complaint given by Niranjan Reddy (A3) herein on the allegation
that the complainant herein has manipulated the shares and have
illegally transferred the amount into his bank account.
5. Per contra, Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, submitted that
all the accused have conspired to cheat the complainant herein.
6. This Court gave its anxious considerations to the rival
7. On a complete reading of the complaint in C.C.No.
37/2009, even according to the complainant, the transactions are of
the year 2006. The Andhra Police have registered a case against the
complainant herein in Crime No.80/2006 in respect of the same
share transactions. In the opinion of this Court, the private
complaint by the complainant herein is only to thwart the
prosecution that has been launched against him by the Andhra
8. In the result, the present private complaint is a sheer
abuse of process of law and the same is quashed not only against
the petitioners herein, namely, Niranjan Reddy (A3),
Navaneethamma (A4) and Rajitha (A5), but also against the other
accused, namely, Siddharthanan (A1), Raghuram (A2) and Ramesh
(A6). Accordingly, the criminal original petition is allowed.
Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
The Judicial Magistrate, No.I
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14732 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012